Strange

The time until the photon is detected at Dp is irrelevant. What you are describing is the "delayed choice quantum eraser" experiment (second link). Quantum effects are non-local in time as well as space.

Even if it were largely natural, it would still be a massive problem. In fact it would be worse because there would be less we could do about it. Oh, I thought it was "mostly natural"

I think you mean protons...

In that case, yes. You are back to the standard double slit experiment, so you will get the interference pattern.

If you remove the detector but leave the polariser? Interesting question. I don't know the answer to that.

Evidence. For example, if you were to engage in rational discussion, not cherry pick evidence and avoid logical fallacies it might change my mind about you. (Although I am willing to bet that won't happen.)

It removes the unique circular polarization associated with each slit. But I'm afraid I don't understand any more details than is in the Wikipedia article. It is the other way round: theory predicted what would happen; the thought experiment was a way of demonstrating it (in principle). It was predicted that if there was a way of detecting which slit a photon went through (without disturbing the it) then this would destroy the interference pattern. Then someone figured out how to do it using entanglement.

It doesn't stop the photon, it just removes the polarisation information so that you can no longer determine which slit each photon went through. There are diagrams on the Wikipedia page linked. It is POL1 in this diagram: It is placed before Dp which measures the polarization of the entangled photon and so allows you to tell which slit the photon went through. The other detector, Ds, detects the interference pattern. Before someone worked out how to detect it using entangled photons, it was purely a thought experiment. They are created by the cool-sounding "spontaneous parametric down conversion" (also explained on the Wikipedia page). Thanks in advance

And I am proud to have been allowed in a couple of times!

Obviously. By definition. Also obvious. It obviously doesn't move linearly around the galactic centre. None of that changes the Earth's spin. And what do you mean by "absolute spin"? Do you have any evidence for that? It would appear to be contradicted by the evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_length#Increasing_day_length Vixra? No thanks. If you are willing to publish your "paper" there, it obviously isn't worth reading.

That is so immature. But I imagine you will be childishly proud of the negative votes it gets.

And that's a problem because ... ?

I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt but ...

Again with the stupid strawman argument.

Sigh. Why this same old stupid strawman? AGAIN? No one objects to new, way out or speculative ideas. The problem is not the ideas. There is nothing wrong with imaginative thinking. There is nothing wrong with speculating. THE IDEAS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM. And never will be. We are talking about science after all. However, some ideas are supported by evidence. Some are not. And some are contradicted by evidence. A rational person would draw some conclusions from those facts. It has nothing to do with being superior or ignorant. It has to do with a willingness to accept evidence, accept that an idea needs to be tested, and accepting when the idea turns out to be wrong. Are you saying those are not good things to do? How else would you suggest we make progress? No, shame on you for supporting irrationality (note: not the ideas, the approach) over critical thinking and evidence. Of course everyone is allowed an opinion. But we are talking about science. Not all opinions deserve to be taken seriously. (It is about evidence and testing the "opinion" remember). a) No it won't. b) So what? That is totally irrelevant. Actually, no, it is very relevant. How will current theories be proved wrong? Based on someone's opinion? No. They will be tested by the use of evidence. Something that crackpots reject. If we accepted your "scientific method" they would never be proved wrong because you approve of the irrational rejection of evidence. SHAME ON YOU.

Yes, the traits that allow them to have more offspring are selected (by the fact they have more offspring). Without that selection process, all you have is a population with a variety of traits. Without the selection process, there is no evolution. "Differential reproductive success" is arguably more accurate but just not as snappy for a lay audience. (There is another thread with people complaining about scientific elitism making concepts too hard to understand.)

There is. No, that is why it is called natural selection: selected by nature. No, because that completely misses the point: favourable traits are selected.

And there is no reason to think that there are enough low-energy (cold) neutrinos to make a significant contribution to dark matter. (Neutrinos were an obvious candidate, but they have fairly definitely been eliminated. Apart from the hypothetical "sterile neutrino" - which is even harder to detect!)

I said this as a sort of joke, but thinking about it some more, there is some truth in it. At some point, Those clinging to the old theory despite the overwhelming evidence do become the real crackpots. For example, those trying to reinstate the aether (for which there was never any evidence to start with) or deny plate tectonics. Contrast these crackpots with, say, Einstein who always disliked the full implications of quantum theory. However, he never denied the evidence and he suggested experiments that could show it to be wrong, etc. (unfortunately, when these experiments were performed, they confirmed quantum theory). Rather pathetically, anti-QM cranks often quote Einstein's comments ("God doesn't play dice", etc.) as "evidence" that quantum theory must be wrong. This just shows how disconnected they are from the meaning of scientific evidence. It is also an appeal to authority, which is ironic as they like to claim that theories are only accepted because Einstein or Darwin or whoever "said so".

Two problems with that. Firstly, there is a "horizon" which limits the lowest energy of neutrinos we see. You can't detect neutrinos with an electromagnet (the clue is in the name: little neutral ones). They can only be detected because highly energetic neutrinos have a minute chance of being caught by a nucleus. Out of the billions of neutrinos that flood through a detector, only a small number are detected.

I looked at a few of those. NONE of them are crackpots. (I don't know if any of them were labelled crackpots by their contemporaries, but I doubt it.) The ones I read were scientists who had radical new ideas. Science, quite rightly, rejected these initially. (An argument could be made that it is those clinging on to the old theory that are closer to crackpots!) The idea was quickly labelled as outrageously wrong and his opponents set to work to discredit it. Yes, that is how science works. The problem with crackpots is not that they have ideas which are wrong; it is that they reject the scientific method. They reject evidence (unless they can make it fit with their "theory"). They reject criticism. They reject objective, quantifiable tests. And so on. Basically, they are not just "not scientists", they are anti-scientists who reject analysis and critical thinking. Apart from that, the entire series of articles is based on the same old, tired logical fallacy that has been brought up several times already in this thread: just because some new ideas were initially rejected does not mean that all rejected ideas should be treated as credible. A variant of the Galileo Gambit. I agree completely. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the thread. (Apart from those people who refuse to learn about science and prefer to make up their own random, unsupported ideas.)

I'm not sure people "turn to" crackpot theories particularly. Nor do I think those that do are doing it as a rejection of science. In general, most people don't have enough knowledge to distinguish good science from cutting edge science from bad/pseudo science. (And maybe science educators and writers are partly to blame for that. But teaching critical thinking skills in schools would help as well.) People find fringe and pseudo-scientific ideas appealing for the same reasons people invent them: they are simple and based on "common sense". So they seem to make sense. Real science is, inevitably, harder work and can be counter-intuitive. Of course science has a purpose without public acceptance. I think people should have some understanding of the scientific method (because critical thinking skills can be useful in everyday life) and science history (so they understand how we got to where we are) and modern scientific research (so they know where and why money is being spent on it). And all of those things because they are just damned interesting. If they have a good acceptance and understanding of science and its importance, then perhaps they are more likely to elect governments who will support science. However, even if they don't, most western countries are based on representative democracy which means that, in part, we elect people who will make some decisions for us based on expert advice, etc. So we don't need to spend our own time deciding which ballet company or sport should get support, which public transport scheme will be most efficient in the next century, or which areas of science will get funded. They, and their expert advisers, will act as our representatives and make those decisions for us.

That is not a "scientific fact". It is no sort of a fact. It is something you have made up. And that is a false conclusion from your non-fact. So your entire thesis is STILL based on made-up facts and false logic. That appears to be a gross misuse of the word "therefore".

Good point: no one did (in the story). They were expelled. So much for free will.

I don't disagree with all you say (although it is nearly all irrelevant to the subject of the thread). But I do have a problem with: You are saying part of the problem is elitism, which would put the blame on the (elitist) scientists. However, you go on to say that this is a problem with the attitude of the "ordinary person". If it doesn't matter what the answer is, then it isn't elitism on the part of the scientist: she can't win. Anyway, I don't know what is wrong with elitism: I want my brain surgeon to be one of the elite. Why? Is the result of an experiment affected by popular opinion? Should it be? Should the choice of experimental method be determined by popular opinion? And why just scientists? Should your doctors treatment be determined by popular opinion? Or by what is most likely to cure you?